Investigating resistance among upper middle school...

Malchi Sheela George_MMU id_10997448 Page 1

Investigating resistance among upper middle school teachers towards

the newly appointed Heads of Department

Introduction:

Creating and developing a leadership team that is committed, efficient and supportive to the

strategies and goals set by the school is a major challenge for the head of school (NCSL2007).The

success or failure of any organizational change depends on leaders and people who work within

the organization. Resistance to change can occur when there is lack of planning and preparation,

poor understanding of the emotional reaction of people to the imposed change and when the

change expects short term wins. Resistance can also occur when there are too many

stakeholders with competing interests with constant change in the policy and political

intervention, unfavorable media and political commentary (Reid 2007). The inspection report of

the last academic year (2010-2011) of the upper middle school was graded as acceptable in all

major subjects (Math, English, Science, Social Studies, 2nd language) in my school. The Head of

school, as part of the school improvement plan, to enhance the quality of the teaching and

learning process in grades 5 - 12, and to make the outcome “good” in the report of 2011-12,

appointed Heads of Department for all subjects in the middle of the academic year.

The Heads of Department would get Dirham’s 1000/- each for their role. This change came to

monitor the progress of teachers despite that each department had its own subject coordinator.

The selected Heads of Department, experienced senior teachers, have been with the school for

more than 10 years. The sudden change that came in the middle of the academic year imposed a

huge challenge to teachers of the upper middle school and most of them resisted it. Teachers

had already completed their planning and preparation of academic work for the entire year with

the help of the subject coordinators and were reluctant to make changes in their already

prepared work.

Research problem and purpose :

My research concerns were to find answers to the following problems.

• What will be the opinions, beliefs and reaction of teachers with this change?

• Why are teachers resisting this change? What challenges are faced by the HODs?

Understanding the impact in the long run if there is no coherent plan of action, as middle

manager, I designed a questionnaire for the teachers and conducted an interview with the HODs

to study the resistance and thereby assist them to resolve and provide the management with my

recommendations.

Malchi Sheela George_MMU id_10997448

PURPOSE OF STUDY:

Theoretical background:

As the study taken up investigates

faced by Heads of department due to

will cover on change management and on

while resisting change as well as the qualities of the leader that

Change Management and Resistance to Change

The theory of cognitive dissonance

(1957) and reformulated by Elliot Aronson i

reasonable to themselves and to others

their attitude towards an event

inconsistent with their attitude then they experience tension and attempt to reduce this tension

and return to a state of cognitive consistency.

people’s decisions are influenced by their initial beliefs and to reduce their cognitive dissonance

they try to seek information that is consistent with their prior beliefs.

to factors that are essential for the success of change

suggests that forces in the manager, team members and the situation are the

determine the success of the change management.

Malchi Sheela George_MMU id_10997448

As the study taken up investigates and focuses on the resistance of teachers

due to the change initiated in the middle of the

on change management and on opinions, beliefs, attitudes and reaction of people

as well as the qualities of the leader that can cause resistance.

and Resistance to Change :

of cognitive dissonance on change management first introduced by Leon Festinger

and reformulated by Elliot Aronson in (1968) proposes that people attempt to appear

to themselves and to others and they ensure that their behavior is consistent with

their attitude towards an event. However, when they themselves act in a way that is


e of cognitive consistency. Similarly Koehler etal 1993 also found


they try to seek information that is consistent with their prior beliefs. However, w

to factors that are essential for the success of change Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s theory

suggests that forces in the manager, team members and the situation are the three

determine the success of the change management.

Page 2

of teachers and challenges

the year, the review

and reaction of people

can cause resistance.

first introduced by Leon Festinger

(1968) proposes that people attempt to appear

and they ensure that their behavior is consistent with

they themselves act in a way that is


1993 also found that


However, while referring

Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s theory (1973)

three factors that


Contradicting these findings, Bartunek etal 1992 state that dogmatic individuals characterized by

rigidity and closed-mindedness might be less willing and able to adjust to new situations.

However Lau & Woodman 1995 failed to support this idea and have concurred that there could

be some form of cognitive rigidity that causes an individual’s resistance to change. In contrast,

Ford and Ford (1994) argue that understanding change by members within an organization vary

according to the logic employed by each. According to them when there is a desire for

collaboration, interested parties will come together to achieve a common purpose. Change

therefore occurs through attraction when people are pulled towards different possibilities.

While referring to failure in change management, John Kotter (1996) identified eight core

reasons in his Harvard Business Review. They are:

1. Allowing too much complacency

2. Failing to find champions

3. Underestimating the power of vision

4. Allowing obstacles to block the new vision

5. Under-communicating the vision

6. Failure to create short term wins.

7. Declaring victory too soon.

8. Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture.

Kotter proposed that if organizations addressed these core reasons, they would be more

successful in implementing significant change initiatives. According to Marris (1975) change may

come about either because it is imposed on us or because we voluntarily participate in or even

initiate change when we find dissatisfaction, inconsistency or intolerability in our current

situation. In either case, the meaning of change will be rarely clear at the outset and

ambivalence will pervade the transition. Any innovation cannot be assimilated unless its

meaning is shared. However, Diamond (1986) concurs that although the remedies for resistance

involve cognitive alignment of resistors, the underlying nature of resistance can be highly

emotional. Contradicting to this, Watson (1982) suggests, what is actually labeled as resistance is

only reluctance. Similarly, Armenkis etal (1993) augments this view by stating that resistance is

a cognitive state called un-readiness. Bordo (1993) defines resistance as all behaviors, events

and social formations that challenge, disrupt or overturn organizational practices, discourses and

power relations and the norms that sustain and reproduce them.

In contrast, Kotter etal (1986) argues that resistance to change can occur when the employees

own rational assessment of the outcomes of the proposed change differ with the outcome

envisaged by the management. Such difference of opinions cast doubt in the employees’ mind

as to the worth of the changes and they choose to stand in opposition or voice concern.

Similarly, Geresick (1989) has opined that people resist change as they are reluctant to take new


steps, avoid losing opportunities’ or fear of failing in the difficult tasks provided. Fullan (1991)

argue that people react to new experiences by attaching their own construction of reality

regardless of the meaning others assign them. Educational change is never fully envisioned until

people in particular situations attempt to spell them out. One reason for failed planning is

because planners of change are unaware of the situations that potential implementers face.

They introduce change without providing the means to identify and confront the situational

constraints and attempting to understand the values, ideas and experiences of those who are

essential for implementing changes. A study by Bogdan and Bike (1992) reveals that change is

complicated because of beliefs, lifestyles and behavior that come into conflict. According to

them people who bring change in education, whether class room or the whole systems, seldom

understand how people involved in the change, think.. Consequently, they are unable to

accurately anticipate how people in the setting react. Since it is such people who must live with

change, it is their definitions of the situation that are crucial if change has to work. These views

are further supported by Abelson (1995) suggestions that states ,we are defined by our

strongest beliefs as much as we are by our most valuable possessions ,so when major change

challenges our attitudes ,values or assumptions it becomes a threat to identify and make

resistance inevitable . While discussing on schools setting rhetorical goals to appease the

outside groups Apple & Junck1992 stated that some teachers may be committed to these goals

believing they are worth meeting and spending the additional time to implement them. These

teachers will exhaust themselves working even harder in an already intensified world to

overcome obstacles. At the same time, this increased work will create an impossible situation for

teachers to meet the goal.

However, Scott (2003) believes that people will not accept or stick to change unless they see it

being relevant, desirable and feasible for them. He also argues that teachers are the leading

agents of change as they are the final arbiters of whether or not it is a great sounding idea. In

contrast, Cummings and Worley (2005) state that most resistance come from technical, political

or cultural issues and that to overcome resistance, major strategies may include empathy,

support, communication, participation and involvement in the change effort. Similarly, Kotter

(2008) also felt that no matter how effective the new ideas are, without the right presentation,

open-minds and willingness to try something different, the organization will not accept the

change. People must have the motivation to change. Contradicting the views given on the

beliefs and attitudes of people on resisting change Carnall’s 1999 investigation reveals that by

identifying the perceptual, emotional, cultural and environmental blocks and by dealing with

them directly and proactively, change can addressed in a structured way. Suffice to say, that

resistance is not a bad thing-depending on one’s perspective. Resistance to change could be

motivated by desires to reform, shift, critique or ignore change intentions (Thomson 2008).


LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Bennis and Nanus (1985) in their study on ninety transforming leaders have stated that

outstanding leaders have a vision for their organization and they have described vision as a

mental image of a possible and desirable future of the organization with a goal and a mission

statement that is realistic, credible, attractive and provide a condition that is better in some

important ways than what now exists. Contradicting this, Madsen 2008 & Hagner2000 have

opined that leaders who have been primarily autocratic or lacked consistent vision, planning and

follow through will have resistant faculty, clinging to tradition and unwilling to make necessary

and appropriate changes. Teachers who work under them are not ready for reinvention of

procedures even when authentic leaders and new leaders arrive. The bitter experiences of the

past such as poor communication, lack of respect for employees, low commitment or support

leave some faculty with little or no desire to disrupt their professional lives and classrooms.

Similarly, Heifetz & Linsky (2008) aver that leaders must strive to manage people’s passionate

difference in a way that diminishes their destructive potential and constructively harnesses their

energy. Leaders must reach out to the resistors and connect with them in finding new ways. In

any organization the uncommitted people, who have a stake in the comfort, stability and

security of the status quo will occupy the largest group and their support is very essential to the

success of any leader’s plan.

The review has thrown light on Change management, beliefs, attitude, opinions as well as on

response of people and found that resistance is a complex phenomenon that continues to affect

the outcome of change to this day; more of literature is covered on reaction to resistance than

methods that can help in overcoming resistance under the theme Change Management &

Resistance to change . The literature has also covered few studies on leadership skills and

resistance under LEADERSHIP & CHANGE MANAGEMENT.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

A meeting was held with teachers and the 4 HODs separately to brief them on the study taken as

a part of my Master’s course. They were advised to be honest about the change that had come

in midway. Assurance on maintaining high confidentiality was given to them. Choice was given

either to participate or not & raise concerns if they don’t wish to participate. All 40 teachers and

4 HODs came forward to participate in this study. As the teachers and the newly appointed

HODs know me for the past 13 years, they were confident that as a middle-manager, I can guide

them in their professional journey.


METHODOLOGY:

The study involved a group of 40 teachers from grades 7, 8 & 9 and 4 HODs to understand the

resistance and challenges faced on appointing the HODs in the middle of the academic year.

Teachers were given a questionnaire while an interview was conducted with the 4 HODs. A

comparative analysis was drawn between these 2 groups to know their attitude, beliefs and

opinions. The purpose of selecting these 2 tools and employ the qualitative research method

was to discover the meanings that participants attach to their behavior, how well they interpret

the situations and express their perspectives on particular issues. As law (2003) states that key

to triangulation is to see the different perspectives and confirm or challenge the findings of one

method with those of another.

QUESTIONNAIRE:

In order to assess the degree of resistance, the study utilized the modified questionnaire of

Professor Shaul Oreg resistance-to-change scale composed of 6 statements. This particular

questionnaire aimed at studying resistance by understanding the feelings and beliefs of people

at a variety of contexts and was found valid according to rigorous scientific standards. The RTC

questionnaire used 6 point scale to measure the degree of resistance (1 strongly agree to 6

strongly disagree). As my study focuses to understand the attitude and beliefs of teachers on

resistance to change, this scale has been, modified and used.

Advantages:

• Teachers were able to work easily by marking a tick than writing lengthy statements.

• Teachers were able to fill in the details and return it at a given time.

Disadvantage:

• As the questions were not open-ended teachers were not able to include comments and

suggestions.

Interview:

To understand the views and thoughts of the Heads of Department a one to one open ended

interview was conducted. The beliefs, practices and opinions of the interviewees were noted

down. The notes were subsequently analyzed. Positive answers and those without many

problems were graded as 1 and 2, whereas those negative and inclined towards requirement of

guidance & assistance were given 3 & 4. The scores were allotted by the interviewer. The

questions asked, were considered as independent variables while scores achieved by the HODs


were considered as dependent variables. Using the bar diagram discussions were drawn by

comparing the 4 subject heads.

Advantage:

• As it was a face to face communication. HODs were able to give their genuine views and

opinions.

• By facing an interview of this kind, HODs can reflect on improving their role in future and

also learn to develop their people skills.

Disadvantage:

• HODs could give a rosy picture despite the resistance, because of the financial gains.


Tools used for the Study, Findings & Analysis:

Questionnaire on Beliefs and Attitudes towards Change

Listed below are 6 statements regarding one’s general beliefs and attitudes towards change. Please

indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement by ticking the appropriate

column.

STATEMENTS

6 5 4 3 2 1

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Inclined

to

disagree

Inclined

to agree Agree

Strongly

agree

1

People at work resist change

unconsciously or even

deliberately

2 Change enforced upon can

result in conflict

3

When someone pressures

me to change something, I

tend to resist it even if I

THINK the change may

ultimately benefit me.

4

When things don’t go

according to plan, it stresses

me out

5

Changing plans in the middle

of the academic year gives

additional stress.

6 My views on changes are

consistent overtime


Findings And Analysis Of The Questionnaire Administered To Teachers:

Question 1

The pie chart shows that 35% of teachers agree that people resist change consciously or even

deliberately while 30% disagree. Referring to Ford and Ford 1994 it can be understood that

change by members in an organization vary according to the logic employed by each and only

when there is a collaboration, the interested parties come together to achieve a common

purpose. Change according to them occurs through attraction when people are pulled to

different possibilities. Contradicting to Ford and ford, Kotter (2008) has said that no matter how

effective new ideas are, without the right presentation, open-mindedness, willingness to try

something different, the organization will not accept change. People must have motivation to

change. It can be understood from the study that percentage who agree are more when

compared to those who disagree.

Strongly

disagree

7%

Disagree

30%

Inclined

to

disagree

5%

Inclined

to agree

15%

Agree

35%

Strongly

agree

8%

People at work resist change

unconsciously or even deliberately


Question 2

It has been noted that 35% of teachers agree and 19% strongly agree that change enforced upon

can result in conflict whereas 13% disagree and 3% strongly disagree to the statement. Madsen

2008 & Hagner 2000 opine that leaders who lack consistent vision and follow through will have

resistant faculty. I agree with them. Teachers who are comfortable with the traditional methods

and procedures do not wish to reinvent even when authentic leaders and new leaders arrive.

The bitter experiences of the past sometimes does not give them the required desire to move

towards change and see how well it can help in their professional journey.

Strongly

disagree

3%

Disagree

13%

Inclined

to

disagree

5%

Inclined

to agree

28%Agree

35%

Strongly

agree

19%

Change enforced upon can result in conflict


Question 3

While 28% of teachers agree and 5% strongly agree to this statement, it was noted that 10%

strongly disagree and 22% disagree to it. Fullan 1991 states that people tend to react to new

experiences by attaching their own construction regardless the meaning others assign to them.

The percentage of teachers agreeing to this statement is more than those who disagree. It was

also noted that 18% of teachers have inclined to agree as well as to disagree they resist change

even if they know it will benefit them. In contradiction, Bartunek etal 1992 states that dogmatic

individuals characterized by rigidity and closed-mindedness might be less willing and able to

adjust to new situations. However, Lau &Woodman 1995 failed to support this idea through

their study and have concurred that there could be some form of cognitive rigidity that causes

an individual’s resistance to change.

Strongly

disagree

10%

Disagree

22%

Inclined

to

disagree

18%

Inclined

to agree

18%

Agree

28%

Strongly

agree

5%

When someone pressures me to change

something, I tend to resist it even if I THINK the

change may ultimately benefit me.


Question 4

53% of teachers agree and 33% strongly agree that they get stressed out when things do not go

according to their plan. The percentage who disagrees to this statement is far more less to those

who completely agree. Apple & Junck (1992) review revealed that teachers who commit to the

goals set by the school believing that it is worth it, exhaust themselves, and work hard to

overcome obstacles. Teachers do get stressed out when they are compelled to accept the

change.

Strongly

disagree

3%

Disagree

7%

Inclined

to

disagree

3%Inclined

to agree

2%

Agree

52%

Strongly

agree

33%

When things don't go according to plan, it

stresses me out.


Question 5

Around 63% of teachers have agreed that changing plans in the middle of the year stresses them

a lot. Referring to John Kotter (1996) it can be seen that there are 8 core reasons why change

fails. Of those, the factor for the stress caused among the teachers here is under-communicating

the vision. If this core reason is addressed well the change initiatives implemented will be more

successful. Only 4% of teachers have disagreed to the statement that changing plans in between

gives additional stress.

Strongly

disagree

0%

Disagree

3%Inclined

to

disagree

0%

Inclined

to agree

7%

Agree

63%

Strongly

agree

27%

Changing plans in the middle of the academic

year gives additional stress


Question 6

Around 63% of teachers have agreed that their views are consistent overtime while 18% have

disagreed to the statement. Elliot Aronson (1968) proposed that people attempt to appear

reasonable to themselves and to others and they ensure that their behavior is consistent with

their attitude towards an event. However, when they themselves act in a way that is


and return to a state of cognitive consistency.

Interview Questions for HODs:

1. How do you feel the change as HOD in your professional journey at the middle of the academic

year 2011-12?

2. How were you able to assist your team when they resisted to making changes to the already

prepared work?

3. How were you able to cope up with members who were resistant to your ideas and guidance?

Strongly

disagree

3%

Disagree

17%

Inclined

to

disagree

5%

Inclined

to agree

7%

Agree

63%

Strongly

agree

5%

My views on changes are consistent overtime


4. What is your vision and how do you plan to integrate the vision into your plan of action to improve

the teaching and the learning process?

5. What support do you acquire from the management to nurture your professional skills?

Data Analysis & Findings of the Interview conducted with HODs:

The scores ranged from 1 to 4 with 4 & 3 given to the answers that were negative, highly

challenging and required assistance and 1 & 2 for answers that were positive and had no

problems.

Subject Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Social studies 3 4 2 3 2

2nd

Language 4 3 4 4 4

Science 3 2 2 2 3

Maths 3 3 3 3 2

The bar graph given below is based on the scores achieved by HODs in the

interview:

X axis horizontal indicates the questions number-wise and the Y axis vertical indicates the

scores achieved by HODs according to the grading allotted by the interviewer

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

S.ST

II LANG

SCIENCE

MATHS


Analysis And Discussion Of The Interview:

One to one interview was conducted with HODs at a convenient time. Prior to the interview a

meeting was conducted to brief them on the purpose of the interview. The response given by

the HODs was noted as they were not comfortable with tape-recording.

Responses given by each head varied. However, the findings showed that all 4 HODs were

delighted to take a leadership position though it came surprisingly in the middle of the year.

Among the 4 HODs (Math, Science, Social studies and the 2nd

language) interviewed it was noted

that the 2nd

language Head was finding it difficult to cope as there was maximum resistance

from team members. She expressed her disappointment that some teachers did not attend the

meeting she had held. Malayalam and French teachers refused to make changes in the

curriculum. They also did not make any changes in the pattern of formative assessments which

she wanted them to follow in the 2nd

term. Referring to Diamond (1986) review, it can be

observed that although the remedy for resistance can be cognitive alignment, the reason for

resistance could be the emotional factor. As the 2nd

language Head had to guide other

vernacular teachers she may be experiencing resistance due to the emotional factor. In addition

to this, all the teachers whom she was expected to guide were experienced senior teachers who

are with this school for a very long time. This resistance can also be as Watson (1982) suggests

reluctance.

The 3 subjects HODs (Science, Math, Social Studies) arrived at the opinion, that it was a bit

challenging to take up a post midyear and they sensed teachers feeling this move as a threat.

Teachers resisting this new change can be on account of the factors as quoted by Geresick

(1989) in his review that people resist change as they are reluctant to take new steps, avoid

losing opportunities or fear of failing in the difficult tasks provided. As question 2 & 3 in the

interview were focused on how they were able to cope up and guide teachers’ despite the

resistance, HODs had different opinions. It was observed that the 2nd language Head was

experiencing maximum resistance from French and Malayalam teachers. She expressed that

some teachers turned out to be aggressive and vehemently rejected her suggestions. The other

3 HODs felt that there was resistance initially. Teachers refused to make changes in question

papers & assignments provided to students. However, in course of time through debate,

discussions and by constantly exchanging communication through mails they were able to arrive

at decisions which were beneficial for the teachers and students. Referring this to Scott (2003)

concurs that people will not accept or stick to change unless they see it being relevant, desirable

and feasible. He also argues that teachers are the leading agents of change as they are the final

arbiters of whether or not it is a great sounding idea. The 2nd language Head needs to work on


the resistance seen among her team by making things desirable and feasible. She requires

guidance and support from her heads to overcome resistance.

While the 3 Heads were clear about their vision, it was observed that the 2nd

language HOD

wasn’t very clear. While referring to Kotter etal (1986) who has concurred that resistance to

change can occur when the employees own rational assessment of the outcomes of the

proposed change differ with the outcome envisaged by the management. Such difference of

opinion casts doubt in the employees’ mind about the worth of the changes and thus they

choose to stand in opposition or voice concern. The team of teachers guided by the 2nd

language

Head may be experiencing a similar situation where their own rational assessment differs with

that of the management. Observing the behavior of her team of teachers the 2nd

language head

is unable to make focused decisions, hence she is not clear about her vision. While giving views,

on the area of support they receive from the management all of them expressed that the

required support was rendered through workshops, meetings and sharing resources. However,

the 2nd

language HOD emphasized there were times when she felt that the necessary support

was not rendered. She expects the management to speak to her team and make them

understand on building new learning on top of learning that already exists.

Comparative analysis between teachers and the Head’s of the Department:

A comparative analysis was drawn from the above data, between the teachers and the HOD’S to

understand the differences of opinion and challenges faced by them. The findings revealed that

teachers did feel stressed out when the school appointed formal subject heads midway through

the academic year. The questionnaire administered to teachers revealed that 63% of teachers

agree that changing plans midway through the year gives additional stress. It was also observed

that 53% agree and 33% strongly agree that when things don’t go according to their plan it is

stressful. Referring this to the study of Bogdan and Bike (1992) that reveals change is

complicated because of beliefs, lifestyles and behavior that come into conflict. According to

them people who bring change in education - class room or the whole systems - seldom

understand how people involved in the change, think. Consequently, they are unable to

accurately anticipate how people in the setting react. Since it is the people in the setting who

must live with change, it is their definitions of the situation that are crucial if change is going to

work. While many teachers have said they were stressed out due to this new change, HODs

(Math, Social Studies) have opined that it was a pleasant surprise and good opportunity for them

to explore ideas, use their talent and to improve their learning. However, it was observed that 2

of the HODs (Science and 2nd

Language) were anxious about the response from peers. They

expressed that they were able to sense a difference of opinion among some team members, as

there were already informal subject coordinators in the middle-school, who were rendering


necessary support. While 35% of teachers have agreed that change enforced upon can result in

conflict, it was observed that HODs in order to avoid conflict and the resistance from their team

let most of the work that was planned earlier be unchanged. Cummings and Worley (2005) have

stated that most resistance come from technical, political or cultural issues and that to

overcome resistance, major strategies may include empathy, support, communication,

participation and involvement in the change effort. It can be observed that the HODs were

empathic and rendered the necessary support to their team.

The HOD of Social Studies has opined that initially there was a lot of negativity and resistance

among her team, gradually with the help of the Senior Leaders & Middle-Managers she was able

to bring in the necessary change. Similarly the 2nd language Head also expressed that as she was

to guide teachers who were teaching French, Malayalam, and Urdu and Hindi; it was very

difficult to get the maximum co-operation from teachers teaching other 2nd languages except

Hindi as the 2nd

language head is an experienced Hindi teacher. She had received more of

opposition from the other 2nd

language teachers because she had no knowledge of those

subjects. The Head of school had appointed her as the HOD as he wanted to improve the

pedagogical skills of teachers than their subject knowledge. While referring to (Madsen 2008 &

Hagner 2000) who aver that leaders who have been primarily autocratic or lacked consistent

vision, planning and follow through will have resistant faculty, clinging to tradition and unwilling

to make necessary and appropriate changes. These teachers are not ready for reinvention of

procedures even when authentic leaders and new leaders arrive. The bitter experiences of the

past such as poor communication, lack of respect for employees, low commitment or support

leave some faculty with little or no desire to disrupt their professional lives and classrooms. The

Head of school one and half years old at school, he had implemented this change to make the

inspection report excellent for this academic year as well as to improve the standards of

teaching and learning. Through the study conducted it was observed that among all teachers the

2nd

language teachers were showed maximum resistance to change that had come midway and

among the 4 HODs the 2nd

language head was facing challenges .

Recommendations:

• The Senior leaders and the Middle-Managers should regularly conduct meetings to prime

teachers and HODs to the new change.

• The 2nd

language Head should be guided to allow her team (Urdu, Malayalam and

French teachers) to manage and organize their own learning. The team must be made

aware that producing the desired results through effective methods is what matters

most.


• Leaders need to motivate teachers in the staff meeting by giving them open praise and

rewards for jobs well done. The HODs should be advised to establish a positive rapport

with the teachers and the middle-school subject coordinators.

• The new HODs should be trained on leadership skills to help build a synergic team.

Limitations of the study :

• As the study conducted was on resistance, the interview questions to HODs and the

questionnaire to teachers had to be well thought out without raising reactions and

sensitivity amongst them. However, the trustworthiness of the answers given was

questionable.

• The study could not cover the other HODs as they were busy and had time constraints.

Had all been interviewed the picture would have been more clear.

Conclusion

Change can only be evaluated by its consequences, and these cannot be known with certainty

until the change effort has been completed and sufficient time has passed. (Hultman1979). This

study that was conducted at a time when the change was initiated revealed that while resistance

to a certain extent was seen among all teachers the maximum was observed among the 2nd

language teachers. They were reluctant to make changes, agree to suggestions offered and were

highly emotional about change. It was perceived that, as this change had come midway through

the year and not well communicated to staff, resistance occurred. To overcome resistance,

senior leaders and middle-managers should create opportunities for team work, empower and

engage everyone, communicate and consult regularly and address all, on the importance of

exploring new ideas and developing skills in the their own subjects through collaborative

learning that can help in molding students to face the global challenges. Leaders should learn

resistance management techniques and understand how to implement these techniques

efficiently.


References:

• Abelson RP(1995) Attitude extremity ,In:Petty RE and Krosnick JA(eds)Attitude Strength :

Antecedents and Consequences .Mahwah,NJ :Lawerence Eribaum Associates

• Apple, M. W., & Junck, S. (1992). You don’t have to be a teacher to teach this unit:

Teaching, technology and control in the classroom. In Hargreaves, A. & M. G. Fullan

(Eds.), Understanding Teacher Development (pp. 20–42). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press

• Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Moss holder, K. W. 1993. Creating readiness for

Organizational change. Human Relations, 46: 681-703.

• Bennis, W.G. and Nanus, B. (1985) Leaders, New York: Harper & Row.

• Bogdan, R. C., & Bike, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to

theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

• Bordo.S(1995) Feminism, Foucault and the politics of the body: In Ramazanoglu C(ed)Up

Against Focucalt: Exploration of Some Tensions between Focucalt and Feminism. London:

Routledge

• Bartunek, J. M., Lacey, C. A., & Wood, D. R. (1992). Social cognition in organizational

change: An insider–outsider approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 204–

223.

• Carnall, C.A. Managing change in organizations. London: Financial Times /Prentice Hall,

1999.

• Cummings, T. G., and Worley, C. G. 2005. Organization Development and Change, 8th

ed.

Mason, OH: South-Western.

• Diamond, M. A. 1986. Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic critique of Argyris and

Schon's contributions to organization theory and intervention. Journal of Management

Studies, 23: 543-562.


• Elliot, R. K. (1992). The third wave breaks on the shores of accounting. Accounting

Horizon, 6(2), 62±85.

• Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in

change. Academy of Management Review, 19, 756–85.

• Fullan, M. G. (with Stiegelbauer, S.). (1991). The new meaning of educational change.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press

• Gersick, C. J. G. 1989. Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of

Management Journal, 32: 274-309.

• Hagner, P. R. (2000, September/October). Faculty engagement and support in the new

learning environment. Educause Review, 35(5), 27-37.

• Heifitz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2008). A survival guide for leaders. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.) Business

leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (2nd ed., pp. 447-462). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Hultman, K. (1979), The Path of Least Resistance, Learning Concepts, Denton, TX.

• Johnny Jermias (2001) Cognitive Dissonance and resistance to change: the influence of

commitment confirmation and feedback on judgment usefulness of accounting systems:

Stan&UPIYAI,Jakarta,Indonesia and Simon Fraser University ,Faculty of Business

Administration British Columbia, Canada V5A1S6

• Kotter, J. P. (2008a). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.)

Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (2nd ed., pp. 370-381). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

• Laws, S. with Harper, C. and Marcus, R. (2003) Research for Development. London: Sage

publications.

• Marris, P. (1975). Loss and change. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday

• Madsen, S. R. (2008, January 9). Preparing Faculty and Staff for Change. Academic

Leadership The Online Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/246.shtml


• NCSL, 2007b, What we know about school leadership, Nottingham: NCSL

• Reid. A (2007) An anatomy of the attacks on Australian Education .Idiom 43(1):5-8.

• Scott, G. (2003, November/December). Effective change management in higher

education. Educause Review, 38(6), 64-80.Retrieved from:

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume38/Ef

fectiveChangeManagementinHig/157869

• Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W.H. (1973) ‘How to choose a leadership pattern’, Harvard

Business Review, May-June: 162–79.

• Thomson (2008) Head teacher critique and resistance : a challenge for policy ,and for

leadership /management scholars .Journal of Educational Administration and History

40(2);85-100.

• Watson, T. J. 1982. Group ideologies and organizational change. Journal of Management

Studies, 19: 259-275.

Date post:	18-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Investigating resistance among upper middle school...

Documents